Talk:Pseudoarchaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edits

I removed the Kon Tiki reference near the bottom. Mitochondrial DNA testing may indicate that Heyerdahl's theory was wrong, but that doesn't make it pseudo-archaeology. Also, I have yet to see a solid refution of his study of food plants in the Pacific and their interrelation with South American food-plant species... True, he may have been a sensationalist, but that does not necessarily discount the whole of his theories.


Pseudoarchaeology, fact or fiction? I don't believe that all searchers of Noah's Arc or other religious artifacts put their religious perspectives over scientific inquisitions. I hope that some day someone does find proof that the Arc really exists. Better yet somebody finds the Arc of the Covenient. Wouldn't that throw a rock into the gears of science!! I feel that religion although almost impossible to overlook in these searches should be put aside and kept at home. The thought that the bible is a treasure map will only cloud their investigations!!!

I removed the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery from the 'see also' list. They are normal archaeological objects, and not pieces of pseudoarchaeology, as putting them on this page would seem to claim. I also removed the prior text from this talk page, because it was discussion about the subject of the page rather than about the page itself. Andre Engels 18:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

removed the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery? hmmm ... both are pointed to by some in the pseudoarchaeology community.
normal archaeological objects? YMMV on that ...
not pieces of pseudoarchaeology? They have been historically pseudoarchaeological subjects.
putting them on this page would seem to claim? Solution, mabey, is to note specifically that they were and are not, generally, anymore (e.g. ppl are looking for them now, analyising them, etc...)?
removed the prior text? it should be archived ... [rv'in that]
discussion about the subject of the page? That isn't what the talk page is for, inaddition to "about the page"? hmmm ...
Sincerely, JDR

I have re-added them now - re-reading the page I realized my objections could be solved by putting them directly under 'archaeology' rather than under 'anachronism'. However, regarding the last question, no a discussion page is not for discussion about the subject: See Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for?. Andre Engels 12:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In other words, the Talk page is about the article on the subject, about making it better. But not for debating the subject itself. A useful distinction! The Antikythera mechanism has been controversial and represented, pseudoarchaeologically, as an anachronism. The pseudoarchaeology here is in the interpretation rather than in the find. Good to list it.Wetman 16:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Problematically, the Antikythera mechanism page itself no longer seems to discuss the anachronism theory, as they consider it too much of a minority opinion. I want to try seperating out the list on this page so that it should be clear what's bunk and what isn't. Ethan Mitchell 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalistic/chauvinistic pseudoarchaeology

  • Piltdown Man, which was possibly forged to ensure that the earliest hominid was English.
  • The theory, commonly held by European settlers, that the mound builders were a long vanished group.

What are the sources for these two comments? Seems like conjecture to me. Piltdown Man may have been just to get a quick buck. Just because people thought the mound builders were gone does not imply prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronjhill (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For the second, read Robert Silverberg's Mound Builders of Ancient America: The Archaeology of a Myth--Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad example

I think this paragraph

In a favorite area of pseudohistory claims are made that a major immigrant group of modern North Americans made a "discovery" of the New World before Columbus. Archaeology unearths a temporary Viking encampment at L'Anse aux Meadows. Pseudoarchaeology associates a stone tower at Newport, Rhode Island with Vikings or claims Viking remains in Minnesota.

is a really bad example, or is not phrased very clearly, since the discovery of a Viking encampment (however temporary) does prove that the Vikings discovered America before Columbus did.

The passage explicitly distinguishes the archaeology of L'Anse aux Meadows from the pseudoarchaeology of the Newport Tower and Minnesota pseudoarchaeology. Maybe it needs a "on the one hand..." etc. to make it even more obvious. Wetman 13:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is not the part I am objecting to. The first sentence implies that America was not discovered by the Vikings. The second implies that it was.

I agree that it is badly worded. To me this paragraph says that the claim of pre-columbian discovery of America is pseudohistory, which it is not. I do not think this is the author's intention, either. My attempt at a rewrite: "One example of pseudoarchaeology is the claim of a Norse settlement of North America some five hundred years before Columbus. Although there is clear archaeological evidence of a temporary Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, pseudoarchaeology also associates a stone tower at Newport, Rhode Island with Vikings or claims Norse remains in Minnesota."--MaxMad 08:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kon Tiki as pseudoarchaeology

... apart from the fact that I don't think KT is archaeology, I'm not sure it is pseudo-archaeology as such either. You can make the claims about the book and the theories, I think, but the point of KT etc, was to see if such a journey was feasible. It's an experiment, rather than complete evidence.

The Kon-Tiki expedition in itself was not pseudoarchaeology, since it proved its premise that the voyage was possible. On the other hand, Thor Heyerdahl's theories about population spreading from South America to Polynesia have been discredited, with DNA mapping techniques not available at the time of the expedition.--MaxMad 12:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical theory and pseudoarchaeology

The paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense:

Archaeologists (and pseudoarchaeologists) schooled in Critical Theory argue that all forms of scientific thought support an ideology of control through which efforts are made to influence society through the exploitation of scientists' status as 'experts'. A relativistic, post-processual commentator might also argue that as there is no such thing as 'truth', and that anyone's view is just as valid as anybody else's. The French philosopher Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality has also led some thinkers to see archaeologists as instruments of the state rather than neutral investigators of the past. The growth of Cultural Resources Management where archaeology is incorporated into the political planning process does little to refute this idea.

I'm a little worried by the implication that critical theory is somehow aligned with pseudoarchaeology. In fact, there is a pretty healthy cohort of critical/Marxist archaeologists who nonetheless practice a scientifically grounded archaeology. Indeed, critical theory has proved a useful avenue for understanding the motivations behind pseudoarchaeological assertions, particularly where those assertions are racist or ideological in nature. A 2004 Charles Orser book, "Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation," is one example.

Also, a number of archaeologists (e.g. Bruce Trigger, Bettinna Arnold) have been examining the statist uses of archaeology (with or without invoking Foucault) for some time, and consciousness of the use and misuse of archaeological knowledge is generally on the rise within the archaeological community. I am not sure that the fact that statism is present in archaeology - it is present in all endeavors undertaken in states - negates utterly the knowledge that it produces. Indeed, the difference between pseudoarchaeologies and "straight" archaeologies are that pseudoarchaeologies begin with a premise (ancient aliens) and go around looking for evidence to support the claim, while scientific archaeologies employ systematic data collection,recursive science practices, falsifiability and peer review as ways to produce knowledge. This paragraph seems to imply however, that the two are equally bogus.

[edit] Criticism

I made extensive changes to the Critics section, mostly in an attempt to keep it NPOV, weed out irrelevent information, and generally improve the flow of the article. I have only a layman's understanding of the debate, but recommendations for legitimate archaeologists don't seem to have a place in an encyclopedia article relating to criticism of and by pseudoarchaeologists. --68.126.221.76 06:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Author?

Hello,

I wish to reference this article and I'd like to know the name of the author. Referencing the article to Wikipedia won't do sorry.

Thanks,

Rick

It's rarely a wise move to directly cite an encyclopedia article. But see Citing Wikipedia for info. There is no one author. Ethan Mitchell 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

How is calling archaeologists snobs NPOV?

[edit] Good work, but I think that your definition of "pseudo-" is too subjective.

For example, the statement:

"In a characteristic approach that is symptomatic of many other pseudosciences, an a priori conclusion is established beforehand, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail "

Therefore, if we didn't now know that he was right, Heinrich Schliemann's work at Troy would fit your definition of pseudoscience. Schliemann most-certainly did decide beforehand that he was going to find a city that the scientific world considered as "mythical" before he began work. However, he did find Troy! Yet if he had stopped one spadeful of dirt short of finding Troy he would be labelled a pseudoarcheologist instead of an archeologist.

This is why I think that your definition needs some more clarification.

I purpose that you rethink your definition of "pseudo-" in terms of whether or not the purposed explanation of a historical event follows the scientific method and/or is consistant with logic and currently-known facts.

My own personal concept of pseudoscience is more in terms of the intentional or careless distortion and misrepresention of evidence in order to construct specious arguments that "sound" scientific with the intention of misleading the public.

Schliemann certainly did not adhere to what we now consider best-practice in archeology. However, he did not intentionally mislead the public either. Using the practices of the time, he made and honest effort to solve a mystery.

Actually, I prefer the term "alternative history" for authors like Hancock and Bauval, among others, and I think it has its place. In some respects we could consider works of alternative history as new hypotheses, yet to be tested. The distinction may be only that we do not have the technology or information to test these hypotheses currently. The inablility to test a hypothesis with science neither dispproves nor proves that hypothesis. Instead, in my honest opinion, it means the issue is still on the table for discussion.

AndyBlackard 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Andy Blackard

I disagree. There is a continuum between science and pseudoscience. Schliemann was a pseudoarchaeologist, at least at the start - he didn't know how to do it right, he destroyed lots of clues by digging right through layers that didn't interest him, and he jumped to conclusions. He learned from others though and crossed the border to real archaeology (I think).
Intentional deception is rare among pseudoscientists. The great majority believes in what they are doing.
"The inability to test a hypothesis with science neither disproves nor proves that hypothesis. Instead, in my honest opinion, it means the issue is still on the table for discussion."
No. If the hypothesis cannot be tested, there is no possibility to discuss it either. Except the sort of "discussion" that only consists of different wordings of "maybe this is right, maybe that. We have no idea". But that's not a real discussion. Untestable hypotheses are useless. They are "not even false". --Hob Gadling 09:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "your edits are unsubstantiated"

I'm confused by this reason to arbitrarily remove all of my edits being there is nothing to "substantiate". All I did was tone down your obviously biased and rhetoric. This entire page is subjective and one-sided and clearly written with disdain for what is in your opinion psuedoscience. Even something as simple as mentioning Von Daineken and Hancock in the same sentence without a qualifying statement is misleading and discredits some of which you say and only proves what I wrote in the "Critic" section which of course you removed. If you can find a better way to say these things than I did please do, but if anything be fair to both sides.Thanos5150 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clarifying comment

" strictly speaking they are psedeuo archaeology, but can be made it. will explaiin more if needed" i meant it to read, "strictly speaking these 2 are not psedeuoarcheaology, but can be made it by their proponents. will explain more if needed". 12.220.94.199 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major slash and burn

I have heavily re-written this article, seeing as it was pretty much pap. Unsourced, speculative, POV-ridden and potentially defamatory (labelling certain writers as "commonly regarded as pseudoarchaeologists"... nice one!).

Now I am no fan of conspiracy theories, and consider myself to be a skeptic bordering on the cynical, but that's no reason to support a lousy article. It needs far more cutting back, frankly, but I leave that task to someone else. ElectricRay 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an improvement. --Wetman 09:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't polish a turd. ElectricRay 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] History Section

The History section in its current state is a pointless jumble; most of it seems to belong more in the examples section, if it belongs at all. Thoughts? ClovisPt 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

God, yes, it's all a mess. I was working on a revamp of the whole article, but I'm in the middle of moving right now. I think some of the history stuff could go well in the examples or in the definition section - for instance, Arthur's alleged tomb at Glastonbury is both a great example of pseudoarchaeological method and of nationalism fueling pseudoarchaeology. I don't have the time at the moment, but if you want to go ahead and fix more of this, please do!!--TurabianNights 06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kon Tiki was pseudoarchaeology?

I grant that Heyerdahl's theory that the South Sea was peopled from Peru is disproven by genetic evidence. But is it really fair to say that the expedition itself was pseudoarchaeology? I was under the impression that he really did show that Peruvians could have made it to Micronesia with their technology, even though they almost certainly did not. Does anybody have a source here? <eleland/talkedits> 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)